The Empire’s Horrifying Plot To Franchise The White Helmets Worldwide



horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


White Helmets and grisly cargo: not emergency responders but murderers in more ways than one.

I sat down with my coffee this beautiful Australian morning to watch two of my favorite independent media figures jam together in a Corbett Report interview of renowned independent investigative journalist Vanessa Beeley. About two-thirds of the way through, I nearly fell out of my chair.

At 24:30 of the clip, the following bone-chilling conversation takes place about the nature of the establishment media’s aggressive protection of the highly publicized “Syrian Civil Defense”, also known as the White Helmets:

Beeley: But I think what is interesting, why is this organization being protected to such an extent? I think it’s because the imperialist apparatus is defending the concept. We’ve already seen [White Helmets founder] James Le Mesurier recruiting in Brazil. We know that the White Helmets have appeared in Malaysia and in Venezuela, and in the Philippines. So you know, because this went through my head so many times, these are only 3,000 criminals and thugs that have emerged from the terrorist ranks or the “Free Syrian Army” [air quotes] moderate extremist ranks to become the White Helmets in order to continue to get paid doing the same job but under a different auspice.

Why are they being so heavily protected? But I think it’s more to do with the concept. It’s more to do with the importance of this concept going forward. As James Le Mesurier said very recently, who would you trust more than the fire brigade or a first response NGO? There you have it. That’s the key to why this group is so important.

James Corbett: It is the perfect cover. And it certainly is a template that I’m sure will be used over and over in these types of situations if they can get away with it. So, extremely important.

Extremely important indeed. The White Helmets are a war propaganda firm with extensive ties to both lucrative western financial backing and known terrorist factions, and the notion of this organization branching out into other potential targets of the US-centralized war machine is absolutely horrifying. We already see the White Helmets cited constantly by western mass media in every allegation against the Assad government, as in this article courtesy of Associated Press and the Washington Post using the “Syrian Civil Defense” as their source for a report on an alleged chemical weapons attack in the Idlib province, referring to them in the header as “Syrian activists”. The mainstream media will promote everything this organization says as fact and do everything they can to protect and promote the White Helmets’ reputation, meaning that if they spread throughout the world, war propaganda can be manufactured from the inside against any government the empire wishes to target with its armies of extremist “freedom fighters”.

In response to this jarring new information I reached out to Vanessa Beeley to make sure I was understanding this properly, and she provided the following statement:

The White Helmets franchise is a terrifying extension of soft power infiltration deep inside target nations, exploiting trust, vulnerability and poverty with the “First Responder” construct that “everyone trusts” as James Le Mesurier so clearly stated in a recent interview in Brazil. This pseudo Humanitarian, NATO state-sanctioned fist will be used to crush many more nations in the future if it is not stopped in Syria. Just as Syria has contained the terrorist fire within its borders, so has it exposed the White Helmets as the terrorist alter ego, but for how long will both be contained? Terrorism is fanning out into Europe via the EU funded Turkish exit routes, the White Helmets are also establishing themselves further afield, in Venezuela, Malaysia, the Philippines to name a few. Terrorism and the White Helmets march in lock-step and can only be stopped by confronting the cancerous cultures in which they are cultivated – US Necolonialism, British Imperialism, EU Globalism, Gulf State Extremism & Israeli Parasitism.

Ouch. Okay. I was really hoping I’d misunderstood.

I cannot overemphasize how dangerous this is. The west is already saturated in deceitful war propaganda about Syria, as shown irrefutably in cases like the Bana Alabed CNN interview and the BBC’s Saving Syria’s Children footageand this has largely been made possible by the mass media’s collaboration with the White Helmets. Putting them in places like Venezuela, a regular target of imperialist manipulationswith the largest oil reserves in in the world, or the Philippines, a major longtime US military asset where a Duterte pivot away from Washington toward Beijing could get very ugly, would give the US war machine the ability to legitimize any allegation against those governments if it decides it’s time for aggressive regime change. The organization’s own website (archived here in case they change it) asserts that it is “currently assessing opportunities for implementation of Civil Defence-based stabilisation programmes in other countries in the Middle East, including Yemen and Iraq.”



Guardian's Solon: the British have a rancid flora of sophisticated scribes for sale, and the empire is an avid buyer.

Yesterday The Guardian, which has surely become the overall most aggressive promoter of western war propaganda on the planet, ran an article titled (I swear I am not making this up) “‘Russia wants to hack the Oscars’: smear campaign targets Syrian nominee”. It was authored by Olivia Solon, the same Guardian writer who, without ever having been to Syria or having any Middle East reporting experience whatsoever, wrote an extremely deceptive smear piece on Beeley and other reporters who’ve been contradicting the establishment narrative about the White Helmets. The new article alleges that Russia is running a conspiratorial campaign to prevent yet another pro-White Helmets documentary from receiving yet another Academy Award.

James Le Mesurier: an amoral accessory to Nuremberg-class war crimes, for profit.

Beeley picks apart this new film The Last Men In Aleppo and the ongoing trend of establishment media elevating such documentaries in this excellent article here, so there’s no need for me to get into why Olivia Solon’s latest war propaganda piece is just as ridiculous as her first, but it’s important to note how ferociously these establishment outlets are protecting the White Helmets. How weird is that? Where else do you see war zone search and rescue teams being made into glamorous media superstars with cute matching uniforms? Who are aggressively protected from counter-narratives by stalwart establishment outlets?

James Le Mesurier is a British private security specialist and a former British military intelligence officer. He knows how to construct a psyop. He’s trying to franchise his war propaganda firm worldwide, where it will be used to manufacture pro-regime change narratives and will be aggressively defended and promoted by the establishment media, and its allegations against disobedient governments and factions will be reported as fact by western newscasters and pundits.

It’s a brilliant scheme, and it may become the future of war propaganda if we can’t shed enough light on it in time. Please help get the truth out about these bastards.

 

______________

Thanks for reading! My daily articles are entirely reader-funded, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following me on Twitter, bookmarking my website, checking out my podcast, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypalor buying my new book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers.

Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

About the Author
 
Caitlin Johnstone
is a brave journalist, political junkie, relentless feminist, champion of the 99 percent. And a powerful counter-propaganda tactician.
 


 Creative Commons License  This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

horiz-long grey

[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

 

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” -- acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump -- a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report 


black-horizontal




Will Christopher Steele Be Charged in the UK as a Spy? by Publius Tacitus [UPDATE]

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

 W. Patrick Lang | Sic Semper Tyrannis


Christopher Steele: key (incriminating) link in the Russiagate affair. For the powers that be his suicide would be most convenient at this point—and they could blame the Russians!


Tacitus01Do you want to know why the FBI continued to insist that the Nunes' memo not be declassified and released to the public? The answer is right there on page 2, (see 1b) in the discussion about what was excluded from the application to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:

The application does not mention Steele was ultimately working on behalf of-and paid by-the DNC and Clinton campaign, or that the FBI had separately authorized payment to Steele for the same information.

I believe that the part in bold is what the FBI wanted out of the memo because it exposes the uncomfortable fact that Christopher Steele was (and had been for some time) a paid asset of the FBI. That is huge news. In other words, Steele was not a mere consultant or sub-contractor for the FBI. He was being paid to provide information/intelligence to the FBI. There are two classes of FBI "informants." One is serving as a "criminal informant" and the other is as an "intelligence asset." Information from "criminal informants" can be used in a U.S. judicial proceeding and the informant called as a witness. Getting money under that circumstance can be problematic because the source's credibility can be impeached by defense counsel, who can argue that the testimony is purloined.

You do not have to worry about that with an "intelligence asset." In that case the priority is protecting the identity of the source. The fact that Steele had been on the FBI payroll for a while sheds new light on Glen Simpson's testimony (which was leaked by Senator Feinstein) to the U.S. Senate. Simpson testified that Steele told him in late September 2016 that the FBI wanted to meet him in Rome to discuss the dossier.  That struck me initially as quite odd. If Steele was just acting as an average "foreign" citizen who was trying to help the FBI then he could easily have met with the Bureau in London. That city hosts the largest number of FBI agents in the world outside of the U.S. But Steele was asked to go meet in Rome. That's what you do when you are meeting an intelligence asset that the Brits do not know about.

That is the problem.

 

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he United States and Great Britain have had a longstanding "understanding" or informal agreement to not recruit each other's intelligence and law enforcement personnel as intelligence assets. I chatted yesterday with an old intelligence hand (a U.S. person) who was approached by British MI 6 during a TDY to London. My friend rejected the come on and reported the approach to the CIA Chief of Station (aka COS).  The COS was angry with the Brits. They were not supposed to do that, nor are we.  But sometimes a target is so attractive that very high level permissions to break the agreements are given.  The real irony here is that the Schiff memo is likely to compound the problem for Steele because it is likely to highlight Steele's prior activities on behalf of the Bureau that predate the 2016 election cycle (remember, Steele was hired by Fusion GPS in June 2016). This is the issue that had FBI Director Wray's panties in a knot. When you sign up a foreign source you vow to protect them. When you expose such a source you make it more difficult to recruit new sources.

There may be another twist to this. Was Steele actually operating as an FBI intel asset with the secret knowledge of the Brits? In other words, was he a double agent or an agent of influence? One way to tell will be watching the reaction of the U.K. authorities now that they know that Steele was a paid FBI informant. Imagine the outrage here if one of the former CIA or FBI talking heads that are appearing on punditry circuit was exposed as someone getting paid by the Russian version of the FBI or CIA. It would be ugly.

The media (and the trolls on this blog) are working feverishly to ignore the uncomfortable truths exposed by the so-called Nunes memo. But facts are stubborn things and more facts will be exposed.

UPDATE--Based on some confused comments by our friend The Twisted Genius aka TTG, I need to provide more of the Nunes memo to establish that Steele in fact was a source. According to that memo:

. . .Steele was suspended and then terminated as an FBI source for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations-an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI in an October 30, 2016, Mother Jones article by David Corn.

If this was a simple matter of Steele, having no official relationship with the FBI, simply reaching out to an old friend to pass on information, then TTG would be right to assert that Steele was not a source. But that is clearly not the case. The FBI can only suspend and terminate a source relationship if that person is a source. Very simple.

Let's take a quick look at the article by Corn that got Steele terminated. The Corn piece was part of an orchestrated media campaign (we know that from Simpson's testimony that was leaked by Diane Feinstein) in order to put pressure on the FBI and James Comey, who had just announced that new Clinton emails had been found on Anthony Weiner's laptop. Corn wrote:

  • On Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid upped the ante. He sent Comey a fiery letter saying the FBI chief may have broken the law and pointed to a potentially greater controversy: “In my communications with you and other top officials in the national security community, it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination between Donald Trump, his top advisors, and the Russian government…The public has a right to know this information.”. . .
  • But Reid’s recent note hinted at more than the Page or Manafort affairs. And a former senior intelligence officer for a Western country who specialized in Russian counterintelligence tells Mother Jones that in recent months he provided the bureau with memos, based on his recent interactions with Russian sources, contending the Russian government has for years tried to co-opt and assist Trump—and that the FBI requested more information from him. . . .
  • [A] senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government.
  • In June, the former Western intelligence officer—who spent almost two decades on Russian intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for corporate clients—was assigned the task of researching Trump’s dealings in Russia and elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm. . . .
  • “It started off as a fairly general inquiry,” says the former spook, who asks not to be identified. But when he dug into Trump, he notes, he came across troubling information indicating connections between Trump and the Russian government. According to his sources, he says, “there was an established exchange of information between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin of mutual benefit.” . . .
  • This was, the former spy remarks, “an extraordinary situation.” He regularly consults with US government agencies on Russian matters, and near the start of July on his own initiative—without the permission of the US company that hired him—he sent a report he had written for that firm to a contact at the FBI, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates, who asked not to be identified. . . .
  • The former intelligence officer says the response from the FBI was “shock and horror.” The FBI, after receiving the first memo, did not immediately request additional material, according to the former intelligence officer and his American associates. Yet in August, they say, the FBI asked him for all information in his possession and for him to explain how the material had been gathered and to identify his sources. The former spy forwarded to the bureau several memos—some of which referred to members of Trump’s inner circle. After that point, he continued to share information with the FBI.

There you have it. The story was right in front of us. What is reported in the Nunes memo is consistent with David Corn's article and with what Glen Simpson testified under oath to the Senate Judiciary Committee.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Colonel W. Patrick Lang is a retired senior officer of U.S. Military Intelligence and U.S. Army Special Forces (The Green Berets). He served in the Department of Defense both as a serving officer and then as a member of the Defense Senior Executive Service for many years. He is a highly decorated veteran of several of America’s overseas conflicts including the war in Vietnam. He was trained and educated as a specialist in the Middle East by the U.S. Army and served in that region for many years. He was the first Professor of the Arabic Language at the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York. In the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) he was the “Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East, South Asia and Terrorism,” and later the first Director of the Defense Humint Service.” For his service in DIA, he was awarded the “Presidential Rank of Distinguished Executive.” This is the equivalent of a British knighthood. He is an analyst consultant for many television and radio broadcasts. The current material was first published on his blog, Sic Semper Tyrannis,  Colonel Pat Lang's Outpost - "A Committee of Correspondence". 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




Unreality

horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

 

 "Victim’s rights is partly an outgrowth of a new sub phylum of narcissism..."

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. — Edward Bernays

For the first time in human history, there is a concerted strategy to manipulate global perception. And the mass media are operating as its compliant assistants, failing both to resist it and to expose it.The sheer ease with which this machinery has been able to do its work reflects a creeping structural weakness which now afflicts the production of our news. — Nick Davis

here is a strange uncanny quality to a number of recent stories. In fact an uncanny quality to nearly everything recently. And it is a quality that includes paranoia, but also the sense of living within some increasingly malevolent psy ops experiment. Now everyone runs for cover when this idea of psy ops is introduced. The conspiracy theorist label is the most feared appellation in contemporary culture. But the truth is that I cannot recall a time when there was so much psychological disquiet running through the populace of North America and Europe. But especially, unsurprisingly, in the U.S. Edward Snowden released information last week that set the CIA black budget at 52 billion (and change) for 2013. Of course, there is some reason to suspect Snowden himself is part of this budget (see how this goes?). One writer noted

In comparison, the Department of Homeland Security was allocated $55.4 billion in 2013. The black budget comes in at a figure larger than the sums received by the Department of the Interior, the Department of Commerce and NASA this year combined.

A few years ago the late Daniel Inouye wrote “there exists a shadowy government with its own Air Force, its own Navy, its own fundraising mechanism and the ability to pursue its own ideas of the national interest, free from all checks and balances, and free from the law itself”.

Today, it is estimated (!) that there are close to 200 special access secret intelligence programs in the U.S. government. Nobody has any idea how many are employed in these programs or, obviously, what they do. Nor does anyone have any clear idea how much money there is to which they have access. Now the recent Snowden leak prompted a number of online publications, many of them ostensively liberal (Wired, The Verge) to declaim the obvious — that's a lot of money — near more than most small countries spend on everything in a year. But see, anyone paying any kind of attention knew all this. And when James Clapper notes that much of the secret budget is targeting North Korea, you know that such leaks are part of the psy ops themselves. For you know Clapper is lying because his mouth is moving. Nobody in the intelligence community really thinks the Pentagon fears North Korea. Lots more discussion makes mention of Pakistan, Hezbollah, and Syria. The usual targets the CIA and Pentagon want America to fear. Not a word about false flag ops or domestic propaganda. Are we to believe the black budget is not spent on propagandizing the U.S. public? Are we to believe the CIA covert program does not engage in false flag operations?

Take this notification about armageddon that occurred in Hawaii recently. I mean seriously, think about what happened. Bill Van Auken wrote..


“The “false alarm” delivered to a population of 1.5 million in the US Pacific island state of Hawaii on Saturday morning has laid bare the clear and present danger of a nuclear war. Cell phones lit up with the text message “BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.” Television and radio broadcasts were interrupted with the chilling announcement that “A missile may impact on sea or land within minutes. This is not a drill.” For 38 minutes, residents of and visitors to Hawaii were confronted face to face with nuclear Armageddon. Parents frantically sought to find and protect their children, families said last goodbyes and people desperately sought largely nonexistent shelter in anticipation of a nuclear blast.”

Thirty eight minutes, huh. Ok. Van Auken adds…“There is no reason that anyone should blindly accept this official story as true. Given the record of the US government in staging provocations and launching wars based upon lies, not only severe skepticism, but outright suspicion is called for.” Of course.

The problem though runs even deeper than just the idea that somehow this intentional false alarm was meant to frighten the public about Nuclear War. It may be that, too, although while I don’t think the U.S. will attack the DPRK (they are too useful as the regional villain), it's certainly useful to normalize the very idea of nuclear war. But this false alarm does something else. It is part of the manufacturing of existential terror. And certainly it fits in seamlessly with the spike in internet censorship (see Diane Feinstein and Adam Schiff letter to Mark Zukerberg…I mean you can't make this shit up). Or listen to Monika Bikert, the Facebook rep as she talks of the doubling of Facebook personnel devoted to weeding out subversives, or what she called *counterspeech* (sic). Fear fear fear everywhere. Even fear of your neighbours. Most everyone is aware of Google and YouTube and Facebook now deleting voices they don’t like, and effectively disappearing web sites that are anti capitalist and anti imperialist. For your own good, of course. Normal.

Lots more discussion makes mention of Pakistan, Hezbollah, and Syria. The usual targets the CIA and Pentagon want America to fear. Not a word about false flag ops or domestic propaganda. Are we to believe the black budget is not spent on propagandizing the U.S. public? Are we to believe the CIA covert program does not engage in false flag operations?

Or think about the Robert Mueller investigation and the massive propaganda campaign against Russia that has taken place the last year. The entire “Russia-gate” narrative is a fiction. But much of the educated white populace are now literally frothing at the mouth in outrage (for what is often unclear, actually, but Trump inspires a new level of hatred and contempt in many) and falling over themselves to laud praise on Mueller and the FBI. Ponder that a moment or two.

Clint Watts, jarhead ex Army, and ex FBI, and now head of some creepy organization that works on censorship (Alliance for Securing Democracy), spoke to a judiciary hearing last year and said “Civil wars don’t start with gunshots, they start with words. America’s war with itself has already begun. We all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations and easily transform us into the Divided States of America.” This in an article by Andre Damon. So fear *words* too.

The public faces of repression. A populace now saturated with online psychological manipulation. Now most of us have noticed, for years, really, the Israeli hasbara trolls on social media. They pop up at odd times to attack any critical discourse on Israeli crimes. The U.S. government does much the same thing for a variety of topics. And it should be noted that there is a precipitous spike in antisemitism on the left. Some of it almost just structural in nature, but much of it blatant. But this is the top text, so to speak. It is never that simple. For the deeper psy op activities are housed directly in the voices of dissent.  Others, all those voices that pop up to attack, with faint praise sometimes, socialist countries; Cuba or the DPRK or Venezuela, are achieving something opposite of what they appear to be claiming. There is always this not quite radical criticism of, say, Hillary and Bill Clinton. But if one just asks…just asks, what about that trail of dead bodies going back decades that seem to follow in the wake of Bill and Hill. Ask that and you are slandered. Ask, say, about any left or even liberal journalist…why is this guy saying this stuff. Ive asked about Chris Hedges unwavering attacks on Slobodan Milosevic. I mean Hedges claims he was there. He should know better. Right? But maybe it's just a blind spot. I find that hard to understand, but maybe. I mean maybe it's all in my head, too. Could be. But if one has any illusions about the CIA and media, here is a useful quick primer.


 

Conspiracy exists. That’s just a fact. COINTELPRO, Iran/Contra, the ‘babies torn from incubators’ meme, or those mythical rape camps in Serbia, or Operation Northwoods, or Operation Gladio for that matter. Yet, there is an enormous resistance to even suggesting any suspicion about certain things. And that is understandable. After all, there are countless crazy conspiracy stuff one can find. And there are certainly tons of people propagating these crazy theories. And it is tiresome. And the complexity of the experience of dealing with crazy theories is often also just enervating and depressing. Lodged within much of it are various layers of antisemitism, xenophobia, and racism. For the people who embrace the worst and most unrealistic conspiracy theories are also, usually, just not very smart. Uneducated, and their embrace is part of a character structure built on resentment and anger. From the crude Trumpian build-a-wall-to-keep-out-those-foreigners-who-are-taking-your-jobs, to the latest incarnations of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (just the word *Rothschild* is enough for me to stop reading) the sheer volume of this stuff is mind numbing. But then there is the possibility that the most outlandish stuff, that which attracts the nativist racists or antisemites might itself fall under the umbrella of that black budget. See how this goes? I mean I often worry everything too outrageous just might be part of some massive psy ops.

The latest UFO video has garnered a lot of attention. I’d love to believe it, I really would. And it’s compelling, actually. But those drawings of the flying saucers. Why do they resemble Buck Rodgers serials? Why is the alien aesthetic, as it were, so retro? All these retired military guys, isn’t that a red flag? I don’t know. Or the moon landing didn’t happen meme. It was done on a sound stage in London and directed by Stanley Kubrick. I love that one, I admit. Why? Because those photos, the colour ones, DO in fact look like something Kubrick would have done. Do I actually believe it? No. But I get the appeal. I get the appeal for all of it. And I get the appeal because the actual world itself is so, well, unreal. Edward Said, not long before his death, did a BBC interview in which he was asked the single thing he felt most about the world at that moment. And he said, ‘the unreality’.

Did private security teams shoot people after Hurricane Katrina? Yes. So did a lot of cops. Did land get stolen from the poor? Of course it did. The ruling class is highly opportunistic. Disaster capitalism and all that. But nobody manufactured a hurricane in some lab at DARPA.

But this unreality is not a hallucination. And the denial of it increasingly feels like its own neurosis. It also strikes me, the denial of all conspiracy theory, as a masculine affliction. It is the residual Puritanism or Calvinism of the stoic nose to the grindstone American male. Take Michael Hastings or Seth Rich, and ask yourself if one can with any equanimity accept the official story. Once upon a time people laughed at the idea that the U.S. government trained death squads at a place called School of the Americas. Unreal. But, of course, it was factual. Air America or CIA cocaine importation and the Gary Webb story. Unreal? Yeah. Sure it was.

The shocking fact, Cockburn and St Clair assert, is the utterly quotidian nature of CIA operations. This is a healthy bureaucracy in which organizing drug transshipments, reportfiling, business lunches and clocking-out ofthe office are the workaday routines of well-educated, well-spoken men in suits. In contrast to the glamorous Hollywood depiction of espionage culture, this is the sphere of public servants, who are bid to dothe job of achieving American geopolitical aspirations as best they can: “it should again be emphasized,” write Cockburn and St Clair, that the ClA works not as a “‘rogue’ Agency but always as the expression of US government policy” dictated from the Oval Office. All this might be dismissed as conspiracy theory were it not for the impressive research and documentation in Whiteout.

—Brian Musgrove, review of Whiteout

Catch that? Might be dismissed as conspiracy theory. Would have been. Almost was. For many still is. And yet there are decades of evidence that the U.S.does in fact engage in routine clandestine operations on foreign soil (and probably, this same evidence suggests, domestically), up to and including murder. There is a million Hollywood movies with this story line. But if one suggests that something not officially recognised might have been a black op — you are just a conspiracy theorist. Or in another register; look at the remarkable work of the Innocence Project. Look at the number of men acquitted of murder, rape, assault, and kidnapping. These men were set up. Those men were not convicted because of accidents or just bad legal representation (though they often had that, too). No, they were set up by venal dishonorable racists, white supremacists, men in positions to take away your freedom. If you are poor, especially poor and black or brown or Native American, then your life is always going to be precarious.

And yet, much of America still needs convincing that the death penalty is wrong. People laugh about how everyone in jail claims innocence. Yet we know many ARE innocent.

Or Chelsea Manning’s campaign for congress. The former Bradley Manning launched her campaign with an Orwellian video in which she is dressed in black, wearing a designer hoodie and which suggests nothing so much as some V for Vendetta outtake, by way of Oswald Mosley. But, but she is running as a … Democrat. What does one make of this, exactly? Unreality. Color me suspicious.



[dropcap]B[/dropcap]ut I want to return to the current wave of antisemitism I see in the West. Much of it on the self identified left. For this represents something symptomatic of the dissipation of critical thinking that is helping foster this climate of unreality. An unreality that aligns psychologically with fascism.

The British ruling class, which was rabidly anti-Semitic, had its own reasons for this support. Out of the First World War, Arab nationalism had emerged as a major threat to domination of the Middle East and Britain hoped that Zionists could be a useful force for policing the Arabs. But Winston Churchill gave another reason for supporting Zionism–defeat of the left wing “International Jews.” In an astoundingly anti-Semitic article titled “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” Churchill wrote, ‘First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them…( )

It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.… [S]hould there be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Anne Levin (International Socialist Review, 2002)

As John Rose wrote…

The shadow of anti-semitism as a partner of Zionism rather than its polar opposite, as the Zionists would claim it to be, hung over the Balfour Declaration. Lord Balfour, the British minister in whose name the declaration was signed, had enthusiastically campaigned for the introduction of the British Aliens Act in 1905 – which aimed deliberately at stemming further Jewish immigration into Britain.

The antisemitism of the educated left today, just as much as the rabid Jew hating of the David Duke variety, both serve to absolve the ruling class of its crimes, to absolve the bourgeois plutocrats and even Capitalism itself. It’s all the fault of the Jews!

The Zionist project has always employed antisemites and Imperialists. The Arab revolt of 1936 was brutally squashed by the British (something at which they were to become very adept) but with massive Zionist assistance in the form of the Haganah paramilitary. Once the Arab populace was soundly defeated and demoralized the Zionists turned on their Imperial guardians.

Anne Levin again…

In 1945, they declared war on the British and drove them out. In 1947, the United Nations imposed its criminal partition of Palestine, which granted the majority of the land to the minority of Jewish settlers. For the Zionists, this was a green light to begin a terrible war of ethnic cleansing. In 1948, through systematic terror and murder, they drove 800,000 Palestinians off their land and founded the state of Israel on the ruins of destroyed Arab Palestine.

The legacy of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is still palpable. Remember too that Vladimir Jabotinsky , the right wing *revisionist* of early Zionism, was much enamored by fascism. The Revisionist newspaper of the time even wrote sympathetically of Hitler, who they believed would discard his antisemitism but trusted he would not discard his more important animus toward Marxism and Bolshiviks. The Israeli massacre of the British at Dir Yassin in 1948 marked the final act for the British mandate of Palestine. The point here is that antisemitism is a hugely useful tool for the current Israeli state. Netanyahu beats the drum constantly. Nothing is more pleasing to Israeli officials than to watch the rise of far right parties today in Europe (all of which echo the language of the Protocals). The destruction of the revolutionary left in Europe by Nazi fascism allowed the Zionist propagandists to manufacture a narrative of Jewish ideological support for Israel. The socialists who fought and died in resistance to fascism have been essentially erased from History…at least Israeli history. The socialist anti Zionism among huge numbers of European Jews has been relegated to Western and Israeli rabbit holes of amnesia. (never mind the Bolshiviks put an end to all racist laws and all anti Jewish legal restrictions in 1917).

The anti-communism of Churchill and the instrumentalization of political Zionism in order to weaken the socialist appeal to Jews were not endeavors free of contradictions. On the Jewish question, Bolshevism at that time had been opposed to Zionism on the ideological front and to anti-Semitism on the political level. British imperialism, in contrast, was promoting Zionism to counter Bolshevism while supporting the elements of the White Guards in the Russian civil war who had a long tradition of anti-Semitism and pogroms. During the civil war, anti-Bolshevik forces killed at least 60,000 Jews.

— Jacques Hersh

Socialist and Marxist opposition to Zionism has existed ever since the modern political movement was launched by Theodor Herzl in 1897. Before World War I, Jewish nationalism was, if anything, more vigorously criticized by Jews than by non-Jews, at least outside Palestine. Jewish adversaries of Zionism at that time included much of the liberal communal establishment in Western countries, “assimilationist” Jews, religious reformers, and most of the preeminent “Orthodox” and ultra-Orthodox rabbis in Russia and Eastern Europe. On the secular Left, the Bund (the leading Jewish workers’ organization in Tsarist Russia), and later the Communists, vehemently opposed Zionism as a utopian, reactionary, “petty-bourgeois” movement.

— Robert Wistrich

Wistrich, himself a defender of the Israeli state, was also a perceptive analyst of contemporary antisemitism. And he recognized the dynamics of prejudice…

On the far Left as well as the far Right, anti-Zionism uses a type of discourse and stereotypes concerning the “Jewish/Zionist lobby,” Israeli/Jewish “criminality,” and Sharonist “warmongering” that is fundamentally manipulative and anti-Semitic. This has penetrated the mainstream debate to the point where 60 percent of all Europeans regard tiny Israel as the greatest threat to world peace; where over a third of those surveyed in Europe and America regularly attribute to Jews excessive power and influence; where Jews are suspected of dual loyalties by ever greater numbers of non-Jews; and where “anti-Zionist” attacks on Jewish institutions and targets show that we are talking about a distinction without a difference. Anti-Zionism is not only the historic heir of earlier forms of anti-Semitism. Today, it is also the lowest common denominator and the bridge between the Left, the Right…

And this is all exactly true. The problem for Wistrich and those critics like him is that Israel IS a criminal state and one that is engaged in something exterminationist regarding Palestinian Arabs. On social media of late I find a nearly never ending discourse on Jewish power, the New Jew World Order, and evil Jewish bankers. And most recently the *Jews were behind 9 11*. So, to return to my sense of unreality and psy ops. One does wonder exactly why this striking revanchist antisemitism? The current sort of stealth fascism of much trendy or branded left discourse fits into this, too. One sees it in the romanticizing of the Kurds (the YPG) and some vague nostalgic and sentimental image of Kurdish nationalism. The Kurds who fight alongside the Imperialist U.S. in Syria, and are armed and trained by the U.S. and UK (long friendly with the Tories). But liberals seem to only care about the perception of Kurdish victimhood. One sees it in the closeted Islamaphobia in much of the left, too. One that often cross pollinates with western bourgeois feminism. Discussions of head scarves or veils often feel like delivery systems for latent xenophobia.

Holocaust survivor Jacques Hersh wrote at Monthly Review

This notwithstanding, some survivors found it difficult to comprehend why, after the industrialized and scientific massacre of millions of Jews, as well as that of other ethnic groups and nationalities, together with the persistent anti-Semitism in both postwar Europe and America, the big powers were now willing to accede to the project of a Jewish homeland. Was this change of heart purely a function of guilt over the treatment of European Jews or was there some “intelligent design” involving the mapping of a future international political architecture which the new state formation would help bring about?

Anti-Semitism, the German socialist leader Bebel therefore felt, was ‘the socialism of idiots.’ Yet what strikes us about the rise of political anti-Semitism at the end of the century is not so much the equation ‘Jew ≈ capitalist,’ which was not implausible in large parts of east/central Europe, but its association with right-wing nationalism.

— Eric Hobsbawm

Gianfranco Fini of the Italian National Alliance and Geert Wilders, leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom, have also professed their admiration of Zionism and the ‘white’ ethnocracy of the state of Israel, while on other occasions making their anti-Semitic views plain. Three things that draw these anti-Semites towards Israel are, first, the state’s ethnocratic character; second, an Islamophobia they assume Israel shares with them; and, third, Israel’s unapologetically harsh policies towards black migrants from Africa…

— Neve Gordon

Kim Domenico (here at Counterpunch) had a perceptive piece on the *Me Too* movement. And it touches on this increasing friendliness toward the fascist sensibility in liberals as well as the far right.

But reading story after story in the news, hearing the salacious details discussed at parties, one can begin to feel the taking down of successful men of business and the arts as being tinged with that McCarthyist kind of sadism, of puritanical vindictiveness. Like all stories coming from Identitiarianism, it blots out the Much Bigger problems of free market capitalism and imperialist wars, of rule by oligarchy and plutocracy, of which dirty “old satyrs” are but one symptom and not the worst, while forefronting victimhood.

And in another piece she writes…

Eyes are off the fascism discernible in this mood of furious vengeance that casts the offender as a special category of monster, tosses aside due process, innocence until proven guilty, and ruins the alleged offender’s reputation for life.

The crimes of the ruling class are absolved. Institutional violence against women is mystified.

I have read, a number of times in fact, Aziz Ansari described as a *pig*. Sometimes by people I know and like. The Ansari narrative, driven by an online tabloid site that solicited such gossip for months, is a sterling example of unreality (I have noted, however, a certain backlash to that particular story…however small). The United States is, today, a crumbling empire where the white bourgeoisie clings ever more deliriously and desperately to their privilege…even if sometimes only illusory. A privilege that includes the right to be victims. A nation of bruised feelings. Victim’s rights is partly an outgrowth of a new sub phylum of narcissism.

The prison system is cutting out visits by family and friends. Only a pay for Skype call is allowed. Prison libraries are being shut down, too. This is gratuitous sadism. Or, maybe a sort of surplus sadism. For the society is one run on resentment and disappointment. The average American is consumed by both. No prison visits. Unreality.

The current under the radar rise of fascist thinking in the liberal West is both disturbing, for obvious reasons, but also haunting. It feels unreal. I see or hear people I know saying things that I find shocking. Racist and xenophobic and mostly just vindictive and vengeful even. The tolerance for American wars speaks to this, I think. Yemen is being reduced to rubble but America simply doesn’t care. The erosion of public education and its effects are partly masked by the addiction to technology. Smart phones, I suppose, in particular. But I say that sincerely. The weird masturbatory text compulsion eats up hours of everyone’s day. People no longer even look at each other. Where Walter Benjamin once marked the shock of late 19th century urban life with the rapid passing of faces in a crowd, today the shock is of the passing faces not seen. Life takes place on screens. A life increasingly unreal.

And yet, one will be called a conspiracy theorist for just asking questions. Just that. And right now it seems to me EVERYTHING should be questioned. There are literally a dozen books now, by serious journalists, outlining the media manipulation and covert activities of the intelligence services here and in the UK. The CIA has manufactured fake news stories since Allen Dulles. And they even admit to manipulating polls, creating or destroying website popularity (and pageview counts), and hiring trolls or shills to highjack social media discussions. But it is hard to imagine the intelligence community does not engage in far more concrete activities. Of course, the flip side is that such speculation (a sidebar benefit) encourages paranoia. It is natural to feel this way given that nothing can be trusted. Nobody and no institution.

German journalist Udo Ulfkotte recently said (reported by Eric Zuesse)….“Most of the journalists you see in foreign countries … European or American journalists …, like me in the past, are so-called non-official cover. … Non-official cover means what? You do work for an intelligence agency…”

And Hollywood is, again, a means to normalizing such activities. It offers mild rebuke, but mostly it just valorizes the duplicity of the government. Of all western governments. And the consequences for such normalization, and the discouragement of skepticism, is the growing expression of this latent xenophobia, racism and antisemitism. The ruling class and its stenographers, the ownership class and its affluent flatterers, have colonized the western imagination. And it is leading to this sense of pervasive unreality. And this unreality seems designed to promote a new fascism. One that makes use of all the old tropes and symbolism, only retrofitted to appear new. And it is growing.



About the Author
 

horiz-long grey


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




A Margaret Thatcher Statue in Parliament Square?

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.


 This week it was announced that London’s Westminster council, which has jurisdiction over the statues placed in Parliament Square, decided against having a statue of Margaret Thatcher in the square.

The reason given by the council was that her statue would almost certainly be vandalized, and that it was too soon after her death for this to be done.

Both the reasons given by the council are probative, but the council tactfully omitted mention of the elephant in the room when they made their decision– Thatcher does not merit having such a monument to her name (unless one believes parliament needs to be fronted by an array of statues of undeserving individuals, which of course is already the case).

As the years of her time in office move increasingly into the past, the release of public records and the publication of memoirs by her colleagues and advisers, confirm the view that Thatcher was probably the most destructive prime minister in British history.

The roster of British prime ministers shows the overwhelming majority to be undistinguished, a great many to be inept (some beyond belief), and even when deemed to be “distinguished”, to have so many failings that few merit having their statue in front of parliament.

Perhaps not even the vaunted Churchill, who was an unmitigated scoundrel in many ways not connected with the war that gave him his reputation.  Where the war is concerned, Churchill’s merciless carpet bombing of Dresden, a target of no military significance, should have brought him before an international tribunal for war crimes, just as Kissinger’s similar carpet bombing of Cambodia during the Vietnam war warrants the same.

The case against Thatcher builds year by year.

She was of course a pal of Chile’s murderous dictator Pinochet, who embarked on Chicago School neoliberal experiments, which Thatcher was later to emulate, as soon as he seized power.

Thatcher and Pinochet: lovey-dovey. Never mind those ugly, pesky accusations about torture and murders under his rule.

In her memoirs Thatcher said Pinochet had shown that “liberal economics works”.  It worked, but only for Chile’s economic elite, as was to be the case with the UK’s elite when Thatcher repeated the dictator’s experiments.  (The connection between Pinochet and Thatcher is described in detail in Andy Beckett’s excellent Pinochet in Piccadilly).

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]hatcher’s experiments destroyed British industry, beginning with coal.  Resolved to defeat the miners’ union during its lengthy strike in 1984-85, Thatcher turned parts of the UK into a police state.  The miners’ leader Arthur Scargill was a poor strategist and played into Thatcher’s hands, though his intuition that her ultimate intention was to destroy the entire coal industry and not just defeat the strike proved to be correct– even those coalfields which opposed Scargill and broke the strike were closed down by Thatcher in post-strike “reforms”.  The UK now imports coal from Poland.

Thatcher, believing the UK could succeed economically on tourism and the financial sector with hardly any industry, implemented policies which wound-down British industries as if checking off a list (steel, car manufacturing, ship building, and electrical goods all bit the dust).

There is no denying that these industries were facing serious problems.  Robert Brenner and others have argued that the US and UK, with older capital-assets, were losing ground to Germany and Japan, flush with brand new more productive capital-assets generated by extensive postwar rebuilding.

The UK’s industries tried to keep up, unsuccessfully in the longer term, by upgrading what were basically prewar industrial resources and technologies.  The UK was exhausted economically after the war, but what it needed was massive industrial renovation, and this was not forthcoming.  The immediate postwar Labour government rightly focused on establishing the welfare state, but subsequent governments of both parties basked complacently in the improved living standards that followed the creation of the welfare state and the renewal of housing stock and infrastructure severely depleted and damaged by the war.  Thatcher, when it came to her turn, decided that the union-dominated industrial sector was not going to be a priority, and from then on an extensive industrial overhaul ceased to be on the UK’s economic agenda.  The collapse of this sector resulted inevitably.

Another outcome of Thatcher’s neoliberal experiments was a doubling of the unemployment rate.  Thatcher had campaigned on the slogan “Labour is not working” in the 1979 election, when unemployment stood at 5.9% (1 million) in 1978 under Labour.  Thatcher’s campaign effectively rebranded the Conservatives as the party of employment, and she won the election.

Once in office, Thatcher imposed her monetarist dogma, and unemployment jumped predictably to 3 million in 1982, despite constant massaging of the employment figures by her employment secretary Norman Tebbit.  Inflation, in double figures for most of the 1970s, did fall to 4% in 1983, but rose again to nearly 8% in 1985.

Thatcher had no interest in reducing unemployment, apart from the purpose of rebranding her party in order to win the election.   Her economic adviser Sir Alan Budd let the cat out of the bag in a future article:

The Thatcher government never believed for a moment that [monetarism] was the correct way to bring down inflation. They did however see that this would be a very good way to raise unemployment. And raising unemployment was an extremely desirable way of reducing the strength of the working classes. […] What was engineered – in Marxist terms – was a crisis of capitalism which re-created the reserve army of labour, and has allowed the capitalists to make high profits ever since.

(An article by Carl Shapiro and Joseph Stiglitz, ‘Equilibrium Unemployment as a Worker Discipline Device’, The American Economic Review 74(1984), 433-44, provides the theoretical underpinning of the re-creation of the reserve army of labour, albeit without mentioning Marx.)

The Thatcherite Alan Budd is right– British capitalists have made high profits ever since, not so much by reviving British industry, but by focusing their efforts on the financial sector.  Here again Thatcher was instrumental.


Like most bourgeois media, especially in the Anglo-American sphere, TIME magazine was celebratory of Thatcher's "accomplishments" and goals.

In a sudden deregulation of financial markets on 27 October 1986 (dubbed the “Big Bang”), Thatcher abolished the distinction between commercial or high-street banks and investment houses, and made electronic trading possible.  This deregulation also made it possible for banks to “invest” their depositors’ savings, thereby putting these at risk.  Even Nigel Lawson, Thatcher’s longtime finance minister (Chancellor of the Exchequer), conceded that the “Big Bang” helped pave the way for the 2007-2008 financial crisis.  Overnight, the City of London (London’s financial district akin to Wall Street) started to become Rip Off City.

Along with deregulation of the financial sector came privatizations of public utilities and the railways (the latter was Thatcher’s aim, though the implementation was left to her successor John Major).

The available evidence shows that the privatization of state enterprises in the UK has brought few if any economic benefits.  Excessively high commissions and fees were paid to private banks to oversee the privatizations in what many describe as a boondoggle.

State monopolies became private oligopolies or cartels after privatization, now mostly owned by overseas firms.  The civil servants who ran the state monopolies on relatively modest fixed salaries gave way to CEOs and managers who lavished upon themselves exorbitant bonuses typical of the private sector, regardless of the performance of their enterprises.  Underperforming enterprises still required taxpayer subsidies, and with no price controls, consumers now got stiffed as well as taxpayers, as prices are raised above the prevailing rate of inflation.

The view of the British plutocracy, through its media mouthpieces. As expected.

Massimo Florio, in The Great Divestiture: Evaluating the Welfare Impact of the British Privatizations 1979-1999 (MIT Press), concludes that “the changeover to private ownership per se had little effect on long-term trends in prices and productivity in Britain and contributed to regressive redistribution”.

A 2015 poll by Survation showed that only 17% of respondents wanted to keep privatized railways, as against 40% who want renationalization and 23% who want to some franchises brought back into the public sector.

Polls for the other Tory privatizations yield consistently similar results to the Survation poll on the railways, and renationalization of the railways, postal service, and utilities is now a central feature of Labour’s manifesto for the next election.

Another disastrous step take by Thatcher was her sale of council or social housing to private buyers.  Much taken by the notion of a “property-owning democracy”, Thatcher allowed social housing to be bought by tenants at rock-bottom prices.  Tenants who did not buy their rented dwellings were forced out by steep rent increases.

What followed in the course of time was anticipated by critics of Thatcher’s policy.  These properties would reappear on the market when their owners died, or moved into assisted living, or simply traded-up in the housing market.  Once on the market, first-time buyers seeking to buy these properties would be outbid by well-heeled private landlords, who would then rent out the “investments” they purchased at “market values”.  Rents skyrocketed, as did property prices.  Diminishing housing-market affordability and housing supply shortfalls meant the Generation Buy of the baby boomer generation was supplanted inexorably by the Generation Rent of recent decades.

Mark Thatcher—fierce capitalist values say nothing about enriching oneself at the expense of the state.

Thatcher’s housing legacy is not a “property-owning democracy”, quite the opposite, but a series of house-price inflation bubbles.

Her own personal housing was not a problem for Thatcher– on her retirement she ensconced herself in a posh multi-million-pound Central London mansion.  When the terms of her will were disclosed after her death, it turned out that the mansion was registered in an offshore tax haven.  The Mirror newspaper, which reported this, carried the story under the caption “This lady’s not for taxing” (a riff on the Iron Lady’s own self-regarding “This lady’s not for turning”).

Thatcher’s dolt of a son Mark was always a problem for her and her husband Denis.  Mark acquired sudden and conspicuous wealth while she was in office, largely by being “an intermediary” in trade and arm’s deals she made with foreign countries.  In ways analogous to Ivanka Trump and her father, Mark would accompany his mother on official trips, to undertake his responsibilities as an “intermediary”.

It was reported this week that government records relating to Mark Thatcher will be withheld from the public until 2053—despite the fact that under the 30-year-rule the National Archives are now releasing records of cabinet meetings from 1986-88, when Thatcher was at the peak of her influence as prime minister.

One news outlet reporting the delay in releasing these records, thelondoneconomic.comsaid:

Charles Moore’s biography of Mrs Thatcher quotes Robin Butler, her private secretary at the time, [who] commented Mrs Thatcher’s involvement ‘conveyed a whiff of corruption’. Coming from her own private secretary that raises even more questions as to why her son’s files are not accessible to the nation.

Cynics will doubtless have ready answers to these questions about the withholding of the Mark Thatcher files until 2053.

The afore-mentioned Lord Robin Butler was not the only Whitehall mandarin in the news this week.    The former head of the Diplomatic Service, Sir Patrick Wright, is about to publish his diaries, and made a number of newsworthy claims about Thatcher’s time in office in extracts published in a national newspaper.   According to the Independent:

Sir Patrick also said that Ms Thatcher “loathed” Germans and wanted to “push” Vietnamese boat people into the sea.

In the diary entry, Sir Patrick writes the conversation [on South African apartheid] took place over a lunch he was invited to with Ms Thatcher. “She opened the conversation by thrusting a newspaper cutting about Oliver Tambo [ANC president] in front of us, saying that it proved that we should not be talking to him… She continued to express her views about a return to pre-1910 South Africa, with a white mini-state partitioned from their neighbouring black states.”

When Sir Patrick questioned the desire and said it would be an extension of apartheid, he said “she barked: ‘Do you have no concern for our strategic interests?’”

Thatcher’s support for a “whites only” mini-state was entirely consistent with her other positions on South Africa:  she had always opposed sanctions against the apartheid state, and described Nelson Mandela in public as a “terrorist”.

A statue of Mandela already stands in Parliament Square.  If the British Establishment erected a statue of Thatcher in the same location, it would be a supreme testimony to its cynicism or “value free” relativism.  It would be akin to the US putting up statues of Robert E Lee and Frederick Douglass in the same square.

Thatcher’s children, Mark and Carol, could perhaps have a subliminal sense of this possible incongruity (Mark Thatcher has been living in South Africa, and Carol in Australia, for a while) — when asked by Westminster council if they wanted a statue of their mother in front of parliament, they failed to reply.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
 Kenneth Surin teaches at Duke University, North Carolina.  He lives in Blacksburg, Virginia. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

window.newShareCountsAuto="smart";




Netflix: The Crown Season Two—Apologetics for the monarchy as sun sets on British Empire

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

By Paul Mitchell
30 January 2018


"The monarchy in Britain is not simply the leftover of some archaic past. It is a potent symbol through which the ruling class seeks to legitimise its class power..."


“ Second rate, dilapidated and sad, like a provincial hotel… a tired institution without a place in the modern world… A middle aged woman, so incurious, unintelligent and unremarkable… Britain’s reduced place in the world was not a surprise but an inevitability”. Jacqueline Kennedy, wife of US President John F. Kennedy, following their meeting with Queen Elizabeth II at Buckingham Palace in 1961.

Although Jackie Kennedy (Jodi Balfour) later apologised for her remarks, Elizabeth’s attempts to prove her wrong lie at the heart of Peter Morgan’s Netflix series The Crown, now on Season Two.


Michael C. Hall, Jodi Balfour, Claire Foy and Matt Smith in The Crown

The season begins with the Suez crisis in 1956, which was brewing at the end of Season One and ends in 1963 with the Soviet spy scare centred on War Minister John Profumo.

Morgan tells the tale of a seemingly unremarkable ruler surviving against all odds as the Empire she inherits crumbles under her feet. The shy, retiring princess Elizabeth, wonderfully portrayed by Claire Foy, ascends to the throne and single-handedly drags Britain into the future. “The world has changed. Society in Britain has changed” and so must the monarchy!

Elizabeth triumphs over a dysfunctional family, fusty courtiers and feeble politicians every time. In the process there are casualties. Humanity has to be expunged, betrayal abounds and individuals are tossed aside.

Marital infidelity consumes much of Season Two. Episode one opens with Elizabeth pleading with husband Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (Matt Smith) to stop his “incessant complaining” and “talk frankly, for once, about what needs to change to make this marriage work”. She reveals that she “has never felt so alone”. Philip replies that he lives in a prison and is treated as a spare part.

Subsequent episodes are sprinkled with Palace attempts to prevent what Elizabeth accepts is Philip’s “need to let off steam” reaching the press. At one point she declares, “The monarchy is too fragile. Another scandal and it will be over”. To prove all is well in the Royal marital department Elizabeth is advised to produce a third child, ten years after the second.


Matthew Goode and Vanessa Kirby in The Crown

Elizabeth’s self-centred sister Margaret (Vanessa Kirby) tries to escape her own prison by marrying a “free spirit”—photographer Antony Armstrong-Jones (Matthew Goode). But even as they announce their engagement, “Tony”, Elizabeth is informed, is having affairs with three women, about to father a child with a fourth and has “a taste for his own sex”. The marriage was to end in divorce 16 years later, with Margaret beset by alcohol problems.

Then there is Elizabeth’s first-born son, Charles. Told the “uncommonly shy” and “delicate” heir to the throne is being treated “cruelly” by other boys at his school, Elizabeth suggests he transfer to nearby Eton. Philip demands he be sent to the spartan Gordonstoun boarding school he attended in the wilds of Scotland, declaring, “It made a man of me”. Not so for poor Charles, who later described his five years at the school as “a prison sentence” and “absolute hell”.

All this inter-personal intrigue makes The Crown often spellbinding and revealing. As a piece of television theatre, it displays the technical mastery that the British generally bring to “period pieces”. The acting is first rate, and in some cases exceptional. When it comes to portraying monarchs, which British writers, directors and actors have been doing since the days of Marlowe and Shakespeare, they are real masters.

The great challenge, however, is to present a real portrait of the people who inhabit this strange world, to show them as human beings without crossing over—ever so imperceptibly—into the realm of maudlin sentimentality or hagiography. The Crown, for all its technical finesse, fails to avoid this critical pitfall.

It is not wrong to show the quite terrible position in which the royals—to the extent that one considers them only as individuals—are placed. But this becomes apologetics when their personalities and actions are totally abstracted from their social and political function. Living in this shut-up world of endless privilege, based on the accident of birth, placed at the summit of the political system and its state power, they are not only victims but also perpetrators. Their personalities acquire characteristics that, to a significant extent, epitomise the indifference to human suffering and even cruelty that characterise the ruling class.

Novelist F. Scott Fitzgerald captured this critical element of the ruling class personality most famously in The Great Gatsby, in his devastating indictment of Tom and Daisy Buchanan: “They were careless people, Tom and Daisy—they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made”. The Crown offers no such penetrating insight into those who inhabit the monarchy and its environment. Perhaps the character who comes closest to being an exception is Elizabeth’s private secretary Tommy Lascelles—played so brilliantly by Pip Torrens. His every word is intended to maim or to kill.


Living in this shut-up world of endless privilege, based on the accident of birth, placed at the summit of the political system and its state power, they are not only victims but also perpetrators. Their personalities acquire characteristics that, to a significant extent, epitomise the indifference to human suffering and even cruelty that characterise the ruling class.

Aside from Lascelles, Morgan fails to make the social function of a character the true and visible element of their dramatic personality. As a result, all sorts of people, above all the queen herself, are let off the hook. There are simply too many cases in which he airbrushes and falsifies history.

Profumo and Christine Keeler. The aristocracy has always raided the daughters of the working class.

Morgan’s treatment of the Profumo affair is a travesty. The tawdry scandal had such an impact—leading to the election of a Labour government—because it cast a devastating light on the doings of the ruling class. Moreover, it was widely recognised that the unfortunate Dr. Stephen Ward was made a scapegoat and driven to suicide so that far more important and powerful personalities (including Philip) could escape relatively unscathed. Key documents relating to the scandal are to remain locked up for another 50 years.

Morgan also perpetuates the myth that the pro-Nazi views of Edward VIII, the Duke of Windsor (Alex Jennings)—who abdicated in 1936—were the musings of a “black sheep” in the Windsor dynasty.

We are shown Elizabeth, 20 years later, tormented by thoughts of “forgiving” her “Uncle David” and giving him a useful job—ambassador to France is suggested—and then deciding otherwise. We are meant to believe she is suddenly shocked to find out there are suppressed Nazi documents about to be released in the US revealing the true extent of Edward’s relationship with the Hitler regime—including plans to reinstate him as king in return for which the German military would be given “full rein” across Europe. To this day, most political archives post-1918 relating to the monarchy remain sealed and exempt from freedom of information requests.


The Duke and Duchess of Windsor visiting Hitler

Prince Philip’s fascist links are also given a snow job. The series concocts a scene where he is shown hesitating (and having to be forced on) during the funeral procession of his sister Cecile—one of three who joined the Nazi party—during her Nazi state funeral (for real picture see here ). Philip has been forced to admit his family found Hitler’s regime “attractive” and had “inhibitions about the Jews”, but where his sympathies lie are shown by anti-democratic, anti-working class, racist comments such as hoping to be “reincarnated as a deadly virus’’ to help solve the “population problem’’ and telling Paraguayan dictator Alfredo Stroessner that, “It’s a pleasant change to be in a country that isn’t ruled by its people”.

Elsewhere, Morgan reduces huge political events to a backdrop for his family drama. People on the international stage become caricatures. At times it is excruciating.

The Suez Crisis, sparked off by the nationalisation of the 120-mile Suez Canal, a waterway critical to British economic and military interests, is portrayed as the product of a personal vendetta by Prime Minister Anthony Eden (Jeremy Northam) against Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (Amir Boutrous).

Eden launches a military invasion with the help of Israel and France to seize the Canal, overthrow Nasser, and install a more pliant regime. Elizabeth, after quizzing Eden and being lied to, drops her reservations and reluctantly backs the doomed adventure. Neither Parliament nor the US are informed. President Dwight D. Eisenhower threatens all three nations with economic sanctions if they persist and forces through a United Nations resolution calling for a cease-fire. The threats work. Troops are withdrawn. Britain is humiliated and Eden hands in his resignation to Elizabeth, who chastises him for embroiling her in a lie.

All exchanges between Eden and Elizabeth are a dramatic imagining, based on later assertions by Philip and a courtier that she was opposed to the invasion. However, Eden and his government were in reality desperately attempting to combat Britain’s decline as an imperial power and its eclipse by the US, which was determined to replace Britain in the strategically vital oil-producing Middle East and elsewhere.


Matt Smith and Claire Foy

[dropcap]F[/dropcap]rom watching The Crown you would also have little understanding of the Cold War that raged between the US and the Soviet Union. Even as the last British troops left Egypt, the US Congress in March 1957 passed what became known as the “Eisenhower Doctrine” labelling “international communism” as the greatest threat to the region and promising financial and military help to any country that tried to resist “communist aggression”.

When Britain withdrew in the late 1960s from all positions “East of Suez”, it was Israel that became the policeman of the Middle East on behalf of US imperialism.

In The Crown, Chancellor Harold Macmillan (Anton Lesser) is portrayed as a rotten scoundrel backstabbing Eden to become prime minister. But Macmillan was facing extraordinary difficulties as he sought to repair the ruling elite’s “special relationship” with the US.

As early as 1926, Leon Trotsky had already predicted the difficulties British imperialism would experience in its relationship with the US. He explained that in the coming historical period, “The basic world antagonism occurs along the line of the conflict of interests between the United States and England. Why? Because England is still the wealthiest and most powerful country, second only to the United States. It is America’s chief rival, the main obstacle on its path.

“In the competition between England and the United States, only retreats are possible for England. At the price of these retreats English capitalism buys the right to participate in the deals of American capitalism. Thus a coalition of Anglo-American capitalism seemingly arises. England saves face, and does so not unprofitably, for England derives substantial profits from it. But it receives them at the price of retreating and clearing the way for America. The US is strengthening her world positions; England’s are growing weaker”.

The result, Trotsky warns, is that England “will not escape the common lot of capitalist countries. America will place her on rations”.

In the post-war period, Britain was made painfully aware of this new reality. The Crown ’s portrayal of the 1961 visit of the newly inaugurated John F. Kennedy and his wife captures this shift. But we are then led to believe that Elizabeth flies to Ghana, against the advice of all around her, to meet with President Kwame Nkrumah largely because she feels outshone by the youthful, cosmopolitan First Lady. By deciding to dance the foxtrot with him, Elizabeth supposedly convinces Nkrumah to sever ties with the USSR and realign Ghana with Britain.

Claire Foy and Danny Sapani (Kwame Nkrumah)

This is an unnecessary slur on Nkrumah, the bourgeois nationalist under whose leadership Ghana became the first African colony to achieve independence in 1957 as part of a wave of popular liberation movements. By the end of the 1960s, no fewer than 27 former colonies in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean were to secure political independence from Britain. Morgan ignores Macmillan’s 1960 African “Wind of Change” speech in which he declares that “whether we like it or not, this growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as a fact, and our national policies must take account of it”.

Instead we are subjected to Elizabeth complaining to Macmillan, as he tenders his resignation in 1963 as leader of a factionally divided party that faced a general election one year later, “[I]n ten years of rule I have had three Prime Ministers—too old, too ill or too weak—a confederacy of elected quitters”. She turns her back on him and walks out—as if she had single-handedly preserved the Commonwealth and therefore British imperialism’s albeit diminished position in the world.

Back in 2006, with Morgan’s The Queen and its portrayal of the crisis provoked by the death of Princess Diana, we noted his “critical and intelligent attitude toward the institutions of state” and “healthy” lack of respect for authority figures. But we also noted his predilection for the queen and claims that, as an individual, she should be commended for having adapted to a “shift in values”.


Elizabeth and Philip, at the beginning of their manufactured fairytale.

Over 10 years have passed. Speaking recently, Morgan declared, “If you were going to choose a character, you wouldn’t choose a private, shy, middle-aged woman of limited intelligence… I don’t mean intelligence, I just mean, she’s not an intellectual. And yet, I find her… Well, I came at it as completely anti-monarchist and I’ve turned around utterly. I’m a royalist, now”.

If Morgan has become a monarchist and set himself the task of publicly cleansing it, it is because his excess of uncritical sympathy has made him forget that the lonely and unhappy people he portrays are the representatives and executors of a monstrously reactionary institution.

The monarchy in Britain is not simply the leftover of some archaic past. It is a potent symbol through which the ruling class seeks to legitimise its class power. It is rooted in the oppression and exploitation of the working population in the interests of a privileged elite. Its perpetuation embodies hereditary privilege, inequality, injustice and social backwardness in contemporary society.

What a terrible intellectual fate: to be seduced, like a second-rate Pygmalion, by one’s own artistic creation and end up besotted by Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.

The author also recommends:

Netflix series on Elizabeth II— The Crown: Sentenced to be queen .


About the Author
Paul Mitchell is cultural & film critic with wsws.org, a Marxian publication. 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

 ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]